Talk:Main Page

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 20:49 on 25 June 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

Administrators: Clear all reports

Errors in the summary of the featured article

Please do not remove this invisible timestamp. See WT:ERRORS and WP:SUBSCRIBE. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Today's FA

• Critics' Choice Movie Awards should be singular... I know it's late in the day but it would still be nice to fix it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in "Did you know ..."

Current DYK

Erismatopterus

... that young Erismatopterus formed shoals as a likely way to avoid predators? Should be changed to something like ... that young Erismatopterus formed shoals, likely as a way to avoid predators? or ... that young Erismatopterus likely formed shoals as a way to avoid predators?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanahary (talk • contribs)

• The former is more UK-ENG, the latter is more US-ENG. I don't see an issue with either of them, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think Zanahary might just be asking for a link for shoals? I agree the syntax is fine for either and don't feel a need to change it, but I don't mind adding a link to shoals. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  On second thought, I think I agree the syntax is a little funky. "likely" modifying "way" sounds odder to me than modifying "as a way" or "formed", though I can't of course explain why, grammer-wise. We aren't trying to say Erismatopterus did this because it would probably work, we're saying they probably did this because it would work. Right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the original wording is wrong, but either of the two alternatives is fine. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just noticed another problem: shoaling behavior and its apparent motivation is ascribed only to Erismatopterus levatus, not to the whole genus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Erismatopterus is an extinct genus of percopsiform fish which lived during the early to middle Eocene epoch and containing the single species Erismatopterus levatus." There are no other species in this genus. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I don’t feel strongly, but wouldn’t it still be more correct to use the specific name? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Wait. The phrasing "formed shoals, likely as a way to avoid predators" implies that we know that it formed shoals and we hypothesize that it did so to avoid predators. The phrasing "likely formed shoals as a way to avoid predators" is going from the certainty that the species would avoid predators if possible, and hypothesizing that it formed shoals to do so. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes—the current phrasing qualifies as likely the effectiveness (whether objectively assessed or as understood by the Erismatopterus) of the practice for predator avoidance rather than, as it should, the certainty of the fact that the purpose of the practice is predator avoidance. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done, going with Z's first suggestion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Mel Carnahan

The source (which is the US Senate's official website) says "for the first time in history—voters knowingly elected a deceased candidate" I don't know why they equivocated with "knowingly", but that got turned into "the first person in U.S. history to win a U.S. Senate election posthumously" in the article, which is a stronger statement than the source supports. And of course repeated in the hook. Can we just stop running "first" hooks, please? RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this CNN source backs up the claim, and I haven't found a counterexample yet. I'll go see if anyone elaborates on why they might hedge with "knowingly" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeing more sources for the same. I think the move is to fix up the article sourcing, not to adjust the hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I swapped TLC's CNN source in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I find it disquieting to remove a source just because it says something which inconveniently disagrees with our article. If the source was crap, sure, but this is the official US Senate website, which I would think is authoritative to things having to do with the Senate. We're supposed to be writing articles based on what we find in WP:RS, not cherry-picking sources which support what we want to say. RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You're reading "knowingly" to mean that there were prior Senators elected posthumously unknowingly. I'm reading it as an intensifier, calling attention to the posthumous campaign and politicking that led to Carnahan's election. The presence of so many other sources that support this being a first, and the well-studied nature of American Senate elections, led me to think the article text is correct as is. I prefer to only cite sources that unambiguously support the article text; I considered keeping the official source, but I worried not every reader would share my interpretation. I'm not confident in removal, and wouldn't object to someone adding back the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the source, along with the other two. It's not up to us to decide which sources we like or how we think people will interpret what they say. We should give our readers the sources we found and let them decide for themselves. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that reasoning is nonsense, but I don't have any problem with the outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's very clear what the original source is taking about, per FFF. The "knowingly" was not intended as a qualifier for the basic fact, merely to emphasise that voters knew he was dead when they voted for him. Given that we have sources without this potential point of confusion though, it made sense to switch to those. Articles don't have to cite every source that says the same thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, someone might have died before the election without that being known to the public. It's rather unlikely now, but may have happened before.-- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well when did it happen before then? I'm usually sceptical of "first" or "only" claims myself, but when I was checking this hook set I had a rummage around and couldn't see anything likely to contradict this, and the primary sources themselves like the Senate are likely to know about it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Errors in the summary of the featured list

Friday's FL

(June 28)

Monday's FL

(July 1)

Errors in the summary of the featured picture

Notice to administrators: When fixing POTD errors, please update the corresponding regular version (i.e. without "protected" in the page title) in addition to the Main Page version linked below.

General discussion

Main Page Header

Anyone care to comment on my new layout for the header? I made it because people just aren't following the link, so I moved the relevant links to the start of the each line. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're never going to get 100% of the editors to use the new section link. I'm not sure how effective these notifications are. Nakon 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect 100%, but I would like to cut down the off topic remarks so that we might see a day when none are posted, even if for that one day only. The placement of the header to my mined decreased the off topics by a noticeable amount, I'm just trying to optimise this effect. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want a link to where reports on vandalism are posted. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There already is, its second from the bottom, The Administrators Noticeboard. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant at "the start of the each line". I didn't see that earlier. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For each topic, the talk page of where the link goes (assuming it isn't a talk page) is the place to post vandalism reports, but the Admin Noticeboard covers all, irrelevant of place. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a new header like this:

Welcome

to the page where you arrive if you come to Wikipedia and click the link that says "discussion".

If you're here to:

• ask a general question about Wikipedia,
• comment on the featured article,
• report an error about a current item on the main page, or
• discuss the structure and the design of the main page,

please do so, and you will receive an informative answer or a link to the information you seek.

If anybody starts complaining that this is not the exactly right place to ask your (or anybody else's) question, feel free to frown upon them.

I wager that one would be more likely to work. Zocky | picture popups 05:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm fairly sure that that would completely, totally and unequivically defeat the purpose of the header... ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that reporting errors here is grand, just so long as its done where all those big Error looking words up there are, and not down here where those big General Discussion looking words here. I know its complicated, but forgive me for not having a brain that converts an ordered system into a chaotic free for all. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should try bigger letters, since people still miss them sometimes? And maybe next time we can try even bigger? Or we could make them flash?

Or, we could just abandon the whole silly over-pedantic tendency and accept that visitors don't read banners? Zocky | picture popups 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, since we made the banner more direct the off topic comments have cut down, I just want to optomise the effect, which is very real. The main page is more then important enough to not be misinterpreted as a free-for-all forum, and its not as if the Village Pump etc. doesn't exist. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, counting the current sections on this talk page, there are 4 that "should" be here, 1 jokular, and 5 that "shouldn't" be here. The banner doesn't seem to be doing such a good job, eh? Zocky | picture popups 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Where as it used to be populated almost exclusively be ones that shouldn't, at least the 4 that shouldn't can be forgiven as they relate to the content on the Main Page. We used to have all sorts; policy debates, complaints, even all out disputes, thoroughly enjoyable I'm sure. I'm certain your not so naive as to believe that reviewing the current status is an effective means of finding out how effective a change is without knowing how it was beforehand, and if you are that naive then I'm going to ask you to drop it. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember very well how it was before the header, and before the WP:ERRORS page, and it was quite alright. At least judging by your contribs page, you don't actually remember how it was before, so I'm going to ask you to drop the attitude, OK? Zocky | picture popups 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your the one making blind assumptions, two of which you've made so far. I only created an account in the last year or two, but I edited as an IP for a long time. Also, your the one making the unrealistic sarcastic comments, not the least of which was your "proposal" above. Taking into account those two things I think the attitude adjustment needs to be on your end. Having said that, I'm not going to let this turn into a personal dispute, so I'm going to leave this sub-thread as it is. I'll happily talk about serious improvement suggestions for the template above however. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one trying to lecture a long-time user about how things worked until relatively recently.

Anyway, while I was obviously somewhat joking with the new banner, my suggestion to stop the whole charade is completely serious. After more than a year, if not two, of the new "system", almost half of all sections on this talk page end with pointers to other places, even when actually answering the questions would often take just as much effort as saying "this is the wrong place". Sneering at people who ask at the wrong place is not as commonplace as it was a year ago, but it does still happen.

We have to be realistic. This is the talk page which is linked from the most visited page on Wikipedia, and it's unrealistic to expect people to read a long banner with a dozen links in detail before posting. If we really need to separate the on-topic discussion from the general questions, it would be much easier to redirect the experienced users to another page and let this one be used as most visitors use it.

In the meantime, tinkering with the header will not change anything. The kind of people who read talk page headers will read it even if it's written in plain text, and the kind of people who don't, won't read it even in giant orange flashing letters. Zocky | picture popups 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)This is no charade. A talk page of any page is for its developement, nothing else, high profile or not. Instead of reversing the process were using, which I say again, has had a positive effect; now that the Main Page is in a class of its own after the Betacommandbot sega, I wonder how difficult it would be to add a "Help" tab to the top of the page beside discussion...
That being my main point here, I should also point out that the people who show up on this page and bite the newcomers are usually admonished for doing so. Also, the fact that the invalid posts end in a redirecting link is a plus, because it stops the invalid discussions being carried on here, which is the whole idea, if only a little late in the day. Also, yes, it sometimes takes a little more effort to create the links then to answer, but the repeat offenders are almost 0%, if not that.
I'm also going to sidestep that long-term user line for the reason I posted beforehand. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A talk page of any page is for its developement, nothing else - I think that we should apply the principle of avoiding foolish consistency here, like we do with the Main page itself, which purists insist should be in the Portal: namespace.

And please, there are no invalid discussions for our purpose. When people who don't know better start a discussion at the most obvious place, they are engaging with the project, which we should encourage not frown upon. Don't get me wrong: It's a good thing that we have more specialized places for discussing specific topics, and it's a good thing that people get directed to them. The underlying problems here are that most visitors don't know how we use the talk pages, and that many if most people don't read boxy headers on top of pages. Both are outside our powers to change.

OTOH, it's a bad thing that we have a large box with traffic signs and big threatening words at the top of the page. We shout in colour, bold, italic and underline at the people who read headers, and it gets ignored by the people that it's meant for, i.e. those that don't read headers. It's also a bad thing that users have to click a non-obvious link on this page to report an error, then when they add the error report and click save, they end up on a different page, and when they find their way back here, the text confusingly (for a newbies) appears on this page.

So, IMO, we should keep the good and get rid of the bad. WP:ERRORS should go, and the banner should be reduced in (font) size and made calmer in tone and appearance. The errors should be reported on this talk page (as they are at every other protected page's talk page), and the general questions should be answered, if possible, and the users directed to the more useful place (the latter already happens most of the time). Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think one of the most basic principles of MediaWiki can be considered a "foolish consistency", and now that you mention it, I say Wikipedia is the appropriate name space for this page, but I never argue the point. In the general sense, there is indeed no invalid discussion, but on a single page, of course there is, would you go to a travel agents to report a crime? Thats what reporting Vandalism here is essentially, and if you'd like me to come up with some more metaphors for the other invalid discussions that occur here feel free to ask.

I agree that most people don't know the exact purpose of the talk page, and I might change the first line of the box in a few minutes to suit, but that doesn't change that fact that the purpose is the purpose.

I can concede that maybe we should/could talk about the Main Pages errors here, thats not outside of basic consideration, but general questions should not be answered here, if we do that, the page will develop a reputation as being for that use. If you wish to use a service you learn its policy's and methods, simple as that. If theres a place for something, you go there, not try and make the wrong place into something its not. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said last time I participated in a discussion like this, I for one am perfectly willing to let the main page talk page be a free for all, if all the people who suggest it are willing to be the ones to ensure the vast majority of free for all issues raised are dealt with. I will not be one of the people who will be dealing with a free for all main page by and large and I suspect nor will a number of people who currently deal with it. Sadly, even though a number of people have supported the either, they don't seem to be volunteering to deal with the mess (or whatever you want to call it) they are planning to create.

The reality is, at the moment there is a very real risk any off topic commentary here is not going to be dealt with. Even if it is left here often all that will happen will be someone will either say it is the wrong place and/or will direct the person to the proper place. But since the vast majority of people probably don't check back, if someone is pointing out vandalism or whatever that needs our attention, it's just going to be missed. This will only get worse if the amount of people dealing with the stuff reduces and/or the amount that we receive increase, both of which I fear your proposal is likely to cause. It is in the best interest of wikipedia, and the people who would otherwise post stuff here in a free for all that they are directed to the proper place

Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is basically to get rid of WP:ERRORS and reduce the visual screaming in the header. Neither would have any effect on the amount of general questions that are asked here, IMO. Zocky | picture popups 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't get rid of WP:ERRORS. We need that to stay on the watchlist of the many helpful admins who monitor the main page. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are two basic possibilities of what the header does. Perhaps it has absolutely no effect in which case while not a solution, it's not a problem so getting rid of it is not urgent. Or alternatively it must have some effect. Whether people are being frightened away and not asking their questions at all, or alternatively they are going to the right place is an interesting issue. But you can't argue that the template frightens new users from using wikipedia and then in the same breath argue it has no affect on the number of general questions. There are mutually exclusive options... BTW I'm not saying that frightening new users is good, simply pointing out it doesn't make sense to claim it has no effect if the reason you want to remove it is because you think it frightens new editors. In any case, as I've already said, until and unless we have contributors who are willing to deal with the proposed free fall all which will result, then I don't really see it as a viable alternative. I for one would be willing to give up monitoring talk:main page if you want to change the header, I would presume that anyone asking for such a change is willing since if not, I don't see any point discussing the issue further. However I cannot accept a situation where we turn the main page talk page into a free fall all and no one actually bothers to deal with the mess that was created. It's IMHO far better that some people are directed to the right place even if we frightenen other people off then no one at all is helped because someone had the bright idea to turn the main page talk page into a free fall all but didn't actually deal with the mess that was created. P.S. I should add that we seem to change the header every 2 months or something and a number of people have experience and opinion that it has reduced the number off topic posts. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK ... WP:ERRORS ...

DYK that the current first DYK says "that that" where it should say "that"? Wanderer57 (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Report at the errors at the top please, thanks. Tourskin (talk) 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Be thankful for people reporting errors and just live with people putting them in the "wrong place". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why someone who has posted an error to the wrong place can't be politely informed so that in future, they and others who see errors will report them in the correct place so that they are dealt with more efficiently and are more likely to be dealt with in the first place Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just get used to the fact that this happens, has happened for years, and will continue to happen. Either develop a way to prevent such comments entirely or accept them and live with them being here all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be going around in circles. No one is denying it happens and will continue to happen. All we're saying is, we already have a way to deal it which is to politely inform those who post in the wrong place to try and reduce instances of it happening in the future. If you have another alternative, why don't you do something about it, instead of complaining about people who are already doing something about it? Bearing in mind neither of the 3 people here are admins so you can do just as much as any of us 2 about it... Your suggestion that if we fail to prevent comments completely then we have somehow completely failed frankly makes no sense Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Protect this page and force people to choose from a few different links: Report an error, Help desk, Reference desk, Village pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And where will legitimate comments be placed? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At the most relevant location, quite probably Village Pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ummm, why would we place legitimate comments about the development of the Main Page on the Village Pump? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem - create a subpage for discussing the Main Page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a subpage will end up closely resembling this talkpage. Sigh... --199.71.174.100 (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, because the number of people that actually want to discuss the Main Page itself is very small, and the link to the talk subpage would be small too. It makes it more difficult for people to comment about the Main Page. "Sigh" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.208.129 (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and making it more difficult to comment about the Main Page will solve all our problems. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia makes me think that I'm actually Sam Lowry, and the rest of my existence is just a dream. --Elliskev 02:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the fuss? WP:ERRORS is on the top of this page. It's impossible to miss it. --Howard the Duck 04:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it isn't. That stupid-ass 'go-away-you-stupid-newbies' banner at the top is ineffectual, uninviting, and counter-productive. It was identified as such from the beginning. --Elliskev 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the banner is too big! --Howard the Duck 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this such a big deal? I mean, when somebody misplaces a comment here, it takes about 45 seconds to direct them to the correct place, or 75 seconds to move it there. Even with three misplaced comments a day, it isn't a huge issue.
If we don't like having a huge talk page we could do it "Czech Wikipedia style". Take a look at cs:Diskuse:Hlavní strana. There are only three threads, and keep in mind that the page isn't archived so the oldest one is from November. The low talk page activity is because each of the sections (Article of the week, DYK, ITN, picture of the week, OTD) has it's talk page to be discussed at, so the main talk page only contains stuff like, "Maybe we should use central Europe time instead of UTC on the Main Page". But I personally don't think this layout is good-when I want to see somebody's comment about the Main Page, I expect to be able to hit the "discussion link" and see all the criticism&praise in one place. I don't want to have to check out six talk pages or click through a disambiguation-I want to be able to see everything at a glance. Puchiko (Talk-email) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Redemption

I would like to take this time to redeem my past self for attacking the DYK's by saying that the Pot-de-fer article was, pardon the pun, explosively interesting. lol. Tourskin (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

EU v Microsoft

Why does the news report of a fine for breach of European law use the American legal term "antitrust"? 11:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said in a statement: "Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he/she say that in English, or is that an American translation of what was actually said? 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.119 (talk)

The European Commission uses the expression 'antitrust', as in this sentence from one of its official English language press releases: "The Commission will continue to conduct antitrust investigations in the energy sector." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.11.85 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording

It would be good to say exactly why the EU is levying a fine against Microsoft. I suggest the following wording:

The European Union fines Microsoft €899 million for non-compliance with a 2003 anti-trust ruling, the largest penalty the EU has ever imposed on a single company.

— EagleOne\^Talk 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack on Gaza

Shouldn't be news mentioning the massacre in Gaza ? i mean for crying out loud at lest 70 people died, among them a large number of children all within 36 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.113.191 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to suggest items for the ITN section- please see WP:ITN/C. J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very enlightening

Hello, your website is very informative and useful, I would like to share with you links, send all the questions on my e-mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.100.22 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to hear that you find Wikipedia to be a useful resource. Maybe you'd like to create an account and help us? --Elliskev 19:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza violence

Its urgent that we mention the recent violence in Gaza on the main page. According to the BBC, its been the worst fighting since Israel withdrew from the Strip in 20005. At least 52 Palestinians were killed as well as two Israelis soldiers. Hamas also responded by firing 50 rockets at Israel. Of the Palestinian causalities eight were children and 16 were militants. Abbas referred to the attacks as "more than a holocaust" while Ehud Barak said "Hamas and those who fire rockets at Israel are responsible and they will pay the price". Khaled Meshaal (Hamas leader) also referred to the attacks as a holocaust. At least 91 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed in the past four days.[1] --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, please direct your comments towards WP:ITN/C. That's where the people who reguarly deal with that section are likely to see it. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins editing main page

Since when has the community supported making admins into super-editors? The general view is that admins are janitors. Here we see admins being given a priviledged editing position. What community discussion took place to make this so? Wjhonson (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see FAQ Numero Uno ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably point out that it takes a serious amount of discussion to get any non-bug-fixing edit to the main page approved. If an admin were to make an edit based on his/her personal taste it would be quickly reported and reverted. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbus Globe

re. "Adolf Hitler never thought much of ... despite its iconic status in the U.S." This is misleading as it is suggest that there its "iconic status" has some connection with Hitler's view. What is the connnection. Really it looks more like unnecessary pushing a reference to the USA, which is sadly all too common in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.169.157 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You wanna handle this one Howard? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know anything about this so I won't comment. (In other words, the DYK mainstays should include my new DYK suggestion. LOL.) --Howard the Duck 03:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the U.S. part was necessary since it appears to be iconic outside the U.S. But from what I can tell, the iconic status part was actually a good idea. The Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders appears to be to be mostly of limited notability. Although created for Nazi leaders, there is no evidence any of them really cared much about it, that it was either an important symbol to them or something they found of use. Specifically, in the case of Hitler, the evidence suggests he in fact didn't care much about it. However what makes the globe more noteable is the fact that it is an icononic representation of Hitler's megalomania (even during the war). Given Hitler himself apparently didn't like the globe, you could argue this is a form of propaganda or misrepresentation but that's beside the point... Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When I originally verified the hook, I had just left it at "iconic status". I guess someone added "in the U.S." since the article discusses at length how it was used as a symbol of Nazi ambitions, particularly in Chaplin's film. I didn't think it was necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The link for Euro (in the news) is going to trolls

I don't know why. 129.67.125.194 (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed and vandal reported. FYI, error reports like this should go in WP:Errors at the top of this page. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't sure that this was an error in the usual sense; the news itself was still correct 129.67.125.194 (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but yeah, anything at all that you find wrong on the Main Page, weither its factual, grammatical, or vandal, just pop it into the WP:Errors above, thats the place the admins keep an eye on, is mostly normal editors down here in general discussion :). ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism like Special:Contributions/Notatrolllol is better reported at WP:AIV. --PFHLai (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No it was a link on the Main Page the IP was concerned about, the IP didn't know it was a redirect. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For next time... --PFHLai (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

4 March 1804

Your comment of the event of a convict rebellion in New South Wales should be rewritten to include the article Castle Hill convict rebellionFoofbun (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey hey

See subject header